And the fact that Obama has called our Constitution fundamentally flawed worries me tremendously. I’m still waiting for Obama, Biden, Burton, or any of the other Obama mouthpieces to articulate what, exactly, is fundamentally flawed about out Constitution and how Obama intends to fix it.

Nonsense, eh?

Well, apart from the other conservative laywers I’ve cited, Ann Althouse also disagrees with you.

And why would he bring up the courts? Because it was a discussion about our history and the courts and the constitution and he’s a constitutional lawyer. Come on Rich, you are really grasping here.

@Jimmy…

I’m fine with tax rebate checks going to people with zero income liability. Because those are the folks who will put the money directly back into the economy and ultimately help everybody…including the rich. I don’t see how that’s morally unacceptable. And this whole nonsensical wealth redistribution argument that’s going around now…as if any other form of taxation would work? Please.

People who pay no taxes take benefits from public infrastructure while people in the highest income brackets likely do not gain nearly as much benefits as they pay. You are wrong that this is not wealth distribution.

In a completely private society, wouldn’t the roads and schools you use be dependent on how much you could pay, and wouldn’t you pay for as much use as you’ll get out?

If you can provide a good explanation for why public infrastructure is not wealth distribution, please provide one. Otherwise, I will say this again, you are wrong. In other areas of economics this is referred to as a positive externality, when one group benefits from the productive activity of another group without paying for that benefit. Here though, switch productive activity to taxation and make one group the people with zero income tax liability and another to highest income earners.

Once again Jimmy, afford me an explanation for my ignorance, otherwise I’ll chalk this up to your bias. The fact that you use this public infrastructure is not adequate, people still gain as much as you off of your dollar, and likely those in the higher brackets derive fewer benefits than they pay.

I don’t understand your second paragraph. Put more effort into making your emotionally-charged partisan statements more coherent.

You probably make more money than me because I am a red-neck, gun-totin’ republican rube. You have a better invested in a better education and because you are smarter than me and I have less ambition, you have a higher income. Therefore its not fair. Give me a cash payment in the name of fairness and equality. Give it to me. Give it to me or you should go to jail as a tax fraud.

What is your opinion of providing public education, roads and highways, and national defense to people with zero income tax liability? Presumably you might be okay with this wealth redistribution because it is best for society. Keynesian, as well as welfare, economics tells us that these sorts of tax schemes, similar to a negative tax, receives wide support both as a means of stimulating the economy and creating a sense of fairness within our society. Even prominent conservative economists, such as Greg Mankiw, support this sort of taxation.

Now, say you take issue with the fairness aspect of the negative income tax argument; that regardless of why income inequality has been growing (technology, etc) we should do nothing about it. The argument still exists from welfare economics that this taxation has the potential to be welfare maximizing, and therefore better for our society. Now you shouldn’t ask if it is morally acceptable, because this isn’t a question of morals, but if it is based on sound economic principles.

Yes, he believes the legislature should do it, not the courts. We’re agreed on that point. As an independent this should make you feel better about Obama, not less.

But, again, wealth redistribution is one of the foundations of our economic structure. It’s known by another name: progressive taxation. And, to my knowledge, McCain is in favor of progressive taxation. Therefore, he’s for wealth redistribution.

As far as being spooked, all this does is make me angry. And people, you should be REALLY angry about this, but not because Obama is for wealth redistribution. You should be angry that McCain is trying to convince people that he’s not for it, when nothing could be further from the truth. Obama is simply in favor of 3% additional wealth redistribution on income over $250,000. That’s it. End of story. The end.

If we are only talking about, as you say “Obama wants the redistribution to go back to levels under Clinton.” Then why would Obama talk about courts at all? (Remember this is 2001 just after the Clinton admin ended.)

It simply doesn’t make sense to claim Obama wasn’t talking about anything new.

And if the Volokh quote is supposed to make me believe we should all be happy little socialists now…its not taking. But thats just me.

My interpretation is that the discussion sounded very academic. I VERY often say things like “one could argue that x” or “one could craft a rationale for y.”

When I say such things, I am NOT arguing in favor of x or y, I am simply noticing that a reasonable and defensible argument can be constructed. My interpretation is that Obama did not at any point during the excerpts explicitly state that he himself is in favor of substantial redistributive policies by means legal or otherwise. Period. My understanding is that he was speaking theoretically, wearing his law professor hat, in assessing the problems and flaws inherent in using the courts to achieve political goals.

Does this thing have the Obama fans that spooked?

Obama doesn’t argue that the courts should do that, and if you read the transcript, you’ll see that.

But since you probably won’t believe me or Obama, read this article from Volokh since I’m sure you’ll trust them. Key graph…

It’s true that most Americans, when asked by pollsters, think that it’s emphatically not the government’s job to redistribute wealth. But are people so stupid as to not recognize that when politicians talk about a “right to health care,” or “equalizing educational opportunities,” or “making the rich pay a fair share of taxes,” or “ensuring that all Americans have the means to go to college,” and so forth and so on, that they are advocating the redistribution of wealth? Is it okay for a politician to talk about the redistribution of wealth only so long as you don’t actually use phrases such as “redistribution” or “spreading the wealth,” in which case he suddenly becomes “socialist”? If so, then American political discourse, which I never thought to be especially elevated, is in even a worse state than I thought.

And to the idea that you can’t find it on Obama’s website…where is it on McCain’s? Or are you honestly telling me that you don’t think McCain favors progressive taxation?

Long story short, our entire economic system is based on wealth redistribution. Obama wants the redistribution to go back to levels under Clinton. McCain wants it to remain the same.

There is NO new news here.

But isn’t the larger forest here the fact that Obama obviously is dedicated to “redistributive change”?

Funny, I can’t find that on his campaign website.